I don't get the Cranston thing. Just because a guy can act and is willing to shave his head, it does not necessarily follow that he would be a good Lex Luthor.

If that's the only qualifier, how about Patrick Stewart?

Click to expand...

Cranston is capable of doing vicious and intelligent very well and that would be perfect for Luthor. He's also the perfect age for the character. Patrick Stewart is too Shakespearean for the part. The problem we have with Eisenberg is that we're afraid he's going to portray a young, hip, cruel, and geeky Lex rather than an older, reserved, and brutal Luthor.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iizKYUNY3I[/yt]

Ask yourself who would be better for a live action version of that scene. Bryan Cranston or Jesse Eisenberg?

Click to expand...

But, again, who says that particular animated version of Luthor is the only way to go? As opposed to, say, the Silver Age version, the pre-Crisis version, the Smallville version, the Gene Hackman version, etc? Or a "young, hip, cruel and geeky" Luthor?

What's wrong with a young and hip Luthor? There's no rule that says you have to copy the cartoon version. Or any other previous version.

Ask yourself who would be better for a live action version of that scene. Bryan Cranston or Jesse Eisenberg?

Click to expand...

That's a meaningless question, because they're not remaking that story in that continuity with those versions of the characters. Their job is to create a new version of the story, one that reinterprets the characters and concepts in ways we haven't seen before. They know what their version of Lex Luthor is going to be, and they've chosen the actor that they think will best suit that character. Once we see the movie, maybe we'll understand why.

I had enormous problems with Man of Steel, but one thing that didn't bother me on the whole was the casting. I've never been a fan of Kevin Costner, and Amy Adams wasn't as tough and lively as I like Lois to be, but Cavill is the most perfect Superman since Reeve, and most of the rest of the cast was excellent. So I'm willing to extend these guys a little trust where casting is concerned, though I remain extremely wary about the writing.

As an aside, here's a trailer for The LEGO Movie that spoofs the trailer for Man of Steel:

Click to expand...

I have to wonder if there's some significance to the fact that a trailer referencing Man of Steel concludes with a shot of Lego Superman saying "You ruined it. Good job." Probably not, but it could be taken as a bit subversive.

I don't get the Cranston thing. Just because a guy can act and is willing to shave his head, it does not necessarily follow that he would be a good Lex Luthor.

If that's the only qualifier, how about Patrick Stewart?

Click to expand...

Cranston is capable of doing vicious and intelligent very well and that would be perfect for Luthor. He's also the perfect age for the character. Patrick Stewart is too Shakespearean for the part. The problem we have with Eisenberg is that we're afraid he's going to portray a young, hip, cruel, and geeky Lex rather than an older, reserved, and brutal Luthor.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iizKYUNY3I[/yt]

Ask yourself who would be better for a live action version of that scene. Bryan Cranston or Jesse Eisenberg?

Click to expand...

Depends on how the character is written. Michael Rosenbaum played "young, hip, cruel, and geeky" Lex for years on Smallville. Older actors like Spacey and Hackman ( no strangers to "older, reserved, and brutal" characters) played a Luthor that was borderline comical and camp.

Part of what makes Walter White a great character is the writing. Plus we see him evolve over the series. The Walter we see at the beginning is a different man the one we see at the end. Cranston is great in the part, but I doubt he's want to play a Luthor who was written like Walter White redux. If we're going Breaking Bad, IMO Gustavo Fring (Giancarlo Esposito ) is closer to Lex Luthor than Walter White. And Dean Norris looks more like classic Luthor than Cranston.

Ask yourself who would be better for a live action version of that scene. Bryan Cranston or Jesse Eisenberg?

Click to expand...

That's a meaningless question, because they're not remaking that story in that continuity with those versions of the characters. Their job is to create a new version of the story, one that reinterprets the characters and concepts in ways we haven't seen before. They know what their version of Lex Luthor is going to be, and they've chosen the actor that they think will best suit that character. Once we see the movie, maybe we'll understand why.

Click to expand...

It's the new version of the story where they reinterpret the characters and concepts in ways we haven't seen before that we're commenting on. Based upon Eisenberg's casting, and Synder's previous history, we can speculate on what Luthor will be like and how his character will fit into the film.

Ask yourself who would be better for a live action version of that scene. Bryan Cranston or Jesse Eisenberg?

Click to expand...

That's a meaningless question, because they're not remaking that story in that continuity with those versions of the characters. Their job is to create a new version of the story, one that reinterprets the characters and concepts in ways we haven't seen before. They know what their version of Lex Luthor is going to be, and they've chosen the actor that they think will best suit that character. Once we see the movie, maybe we'll understand why.

Click to expand...

It's the new version of the story where they reinterpret the characters and concepts in ways we haven't seen before that we're commenting on. Based upon Eisenberg's casting, and Synder's previous history, we can speculate on what Luthor will be like and how his character will fit into the film.

Click to expand...

What about Snyder's past work tells you that Luthor will be "young, hip, cruel, and geeky" and will be written like Zuckerberg in Social Network? I've only seen Eisenberg in the Social Network and Zombieland and nothing tells be he's a one trick pony type actor.

Ask yourself who would be better for a live action version of that scene. Bryan Cranston or Jesse Eisenberg?

Click to expand...

That's a meaningless question, because they're not remaking that story in that continuity with those versions of the characters. Their job is to create a new version of the story, one that reinterprets the characters and concepts in ways we haven't seen before. They know what their version of Lex Luthor is going to be, and they've chosen the actor that they think will best suit that character. Once we see the movie, maybe we'll understand why.

Click to expand...

It's the new version of the story where they reinterpret the characters and concepts in ways we haven't seen before that we're commenting on. Based upon Eisenberg's casting, and Synder's previous history, we can speculate on what Luthor will be like and how his character will fit into the film.

Click to expand...

Really.

You know from Snyder's history what the story is and how the characters will fit into it?

If this Eisenberry (sic) guy has left an impression on you, maybe that's a hint of his acting talent. That's what actors are trained to do, unless I'm sadly mistaken.

Speculate all you like, but unless you have inside information it's still just speculation.

It's the new version of the story where they reinterpret the characters and concepts in ways we haven't seen before that we're commenting on.

Click to expand...

Then why do you think a clip from a Justice League Unlimited episode could possibly be relevant to that question?

Based upon Eisenberg's casting, and Synder's previous history, we can speculate on what Luthor will be like and how his character will fit into the film.

Click to expand...

I don't see how we can. Eisenberg is an actor. It's his job to adopt different personalities as needed.

Do I really need to play the Heath Ledger card once again? At the time he was cast as the Joker, he was known as a pretty-boy actor and fandom exploded in outrage because they couldn't imagine him being any good in the role. Before that, it was Michael Keaton as Batman -- "how is Beetlejuice going to play a serious action lead?" Fans keep making the same mistake because they forget what acting is.

Do I really need to play the Heath Ledger card once again? At the time he was cast as the Joker, he was known as a pretty-boy actor and fandom exploded in outrage because they couldn't imagine him being any good in the role. Before that, it was Michael Keaton as Batman -- "how is Beetlejuice going to play a serious action lead?" Fans keep making the same mistake because they forget what acting is.

Click to expand...

There's also an unfortunate tendency to assume that if it's not just like a previous version, it's wrong.

I don't get the Cranston thing. Just because a guy can act and is willing to shave his head, it does not necessarily follow that he would be a good Lex Luthor.

If that's the only qualifier, how about Patrick Stewart?

Click to expand...

Cranston is capable of doing vicious and intelligent very well and that would be perfect for Luthor. He's also the perfect age for the character. Patrick Stewart is too Shakespearean for the part. The problem we have with Eisenberg is that we're afraid he's going to portray a young, hip, cruel, and geeky Lex rather than an older, reserved, and brutal Luthor.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iizKYUNY3I[/yt]

Ask yourself who would be better for a live action version of that scene. Bryan Cranston or Jesse Eisenberg?

Click to expand...

"All I want is a frickin' top-floor office with, a frickin' surrounding aquarium with frickin' sharks in it!"

Good scene, never really seen that series, probably should check it out, but that office is just nuts!

I certainly loved the JLU Lex... but frankly Clancy Brown already played that version of the character so damn well I'm not sure I would want to see anyone else try. Same goes with Hackman and his comical, wisecracking Lex.

I doubt many people would have been clamoring for Bryan Cranston if he'd never shaved his head for Breaking Bad.

Click to expand...

This is because many people just want someone who looks like the character, acting prowess be damned. (See: Everyone who complained about Hugh Jackman's casting as Wolverine, instead crying for Glenn fucking Danzig.)

Anyway, Mark Zuckerberg as Lex Luthor is pretty nifty. I'm hit and miss on Snyder as a director (love Watchmen and Dawn of the Dead, I thought Man of Steel was very well directed but needed a better script, couldn't get into 300 and Sucker Punch is just appalling), but with very few exceptions -- Malin Åkerman was atrocious in Watchmen, and honestly Cavill has a disturbing lack of charisma -- Snyder's casting is generally spot-on. At the very least, he's very good at picking actors who match his vision for the character.

I don't know who Danzig is, but I often thought Michael Hurst (Iolaus from Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, and one of New Zealand's most acclaimed actors) could've made an impressive -- and more authentically sized -- Wolverine.

Anyway, Mark Zuckerberg as Lex Luthor is pretty nifty.

Click to expand...

We don't know that's what they're going for. The same actor does not equate to the same character.

and honestly Cavill has a disturbing lack of charisma

Click to expand...

For me, Cavill's charisma was the only thing that made this version of Superman work. I really believed he was Superman, and it was entirely due to the performance, not the misguided script that didn't let him be a hero.